I agree with you. That’s why I’m wary of how lax our society is about who is allowed to carry guns. I personally choose not to carry for various reasons one of which is that I don’t want to be responsible in the event of such a mistake no matter how unlikely it may be.

I wouldn’t, but plenty of people do. It varies widely State to state but in many places such as Texas there isn’t an intelligence test before being allowed to carry a gun.

I don’t think you can speak for everyone. It sounds like you are a responsible carrier so kudos for that. But I’m sure I’ve misplaced something important outside of my home at some point. I can’t recall an example but I’m sure it’s happened in 20+ years of adulthood. Mind you, it was more likely when drunk and out partying, and if I did carry I’d leave it behind on that situation.

Don’t underestimate me

You can’t tell me you’ve never misplaced your keys, or your phone…

I’m not defending the guy, it’s still wrong, but just because something is wrong doesn’t mean you can’t understand how it would happen. To someone who carries a gun every day, it’s just like keys, wallet, phone including that it can be misplaced as easily.

In Texas anyway

Because there’s no reason to, especially something like an ancient law that was technically invalidated by a Supreme Court case. There are invalid laws on the books basically everywhere, lots of states and many more counties and municipalities, because there’s no real benefit to legislatively repealing or rewriting a law that’s been invalidated by a court, except to make less (billable) work for lawyers. Since most legislators are also lawyers, why would they put in extra work themselves that serves no purpose but to make it harder for their colleagues to earn a living?

This is the correct answer. And if I recall from law school, the only state that did otherwise was Louisiana and most legal scholars note that the state is kind of an aberration from the rest of the country based on its Napoleonic roots. Napoleon was kind of a weird bureaucratic dictator and liked all laws to be explicitly spelled out in writing; I believe (though I don’t know because I haven’t really researched it) that his code basically disposed with “common law” altogether.

The rest of the US is based on the English common law tradition, where “the law” is a mix of statutes and court precedents. Most states have passed new statutes to cover most situations but still depend on case law to flesh out ambiguities in the statutes, which is basically why courts require trained specialists as lawyers and judges.

That doesn’t make it any less a gathering of sleep-deprived armed men in an emotionally compromised state.

Okay, but think about this rationally instead of emotionally. What is the basis for this perceived need for heightened security? This wasn’t a comic book villain hunting down cops out of some weird vendetta, it was an armed suspect with nothing to lose trying to escape justice. Why would that indicate a broad threat to the hospitalized cops in particular, or cops in general? This seems like a bunch of armed individuals being “on edge” and reacting disproportionately, increasing, not decreasing, the odds that someone else is hurt or killed. Not to mention this triggers my own pet issue, cops working extra overtime and therefore being armed and driving cars while sleep deprived.

Leaving aside the interesting notion that all cops carrying guns is a uniquely American practice, I’m not sure that having 40% fewer armed cops would be a problem. Replace them with social workers.

I’m curious as to exactly how this works since the locks come with keys.

I lost my key, but still had to ask a friend to come take my shotgun because I knew where the bolt cutter was. I don’t suddenly become stupid when I’m feeling depressed.

And yet, despite all of these issues, it’s still an order of magnitude better than the health care that is provided to many working Americans, which is: you don’t get to see doctors at all, and if you call in sick you’re fired and homeless.